What are Independent Christian Churches?

00:00 History of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ
02:24 International Conference on Missions & Spire Network
03:24 Nondenominational Identity as “Christians Only”
05:26 Major Christian Doctrine
06:01 Sacraments or Ordinances
09:04 Scripture
09:55 Creation & Evolution
11:40 Sin & Salvation
13:34 View on “Eternal Security”
14:30 View on Pentecostalism & Charismatism
14:45 End Times (Eschatology)
16:30 Marriage & Sexuality
17:44 Divorce & Remarriage
18:30 Abortion
18:52 Worship Style
20:00 Alcohol
21:02 Tithing
22:09 Church Government
23:06 Women in Ministry
25:11 Organizations
26:05 Statistics

[@tejloro]

These churches can be autonomous in the extreme... I was in a town that had 2 Christian Churches... and they both didn't know the other was there... I was the Church of Christ preacher in that town and I opened fellowshipped with both of the Christian Church preachers and actually introduced them to each other...

[@benjaminwatt2436]

wow impressive. Personally I think Protestants should work harder to work together. Maybe on mission projects or community service activities. it would look better on us as Christians

[@mpetersen6]

​@@benjaminwatt2436 Personally l think all Christian's should work towards a Common Communion amongst all of us. It is not rites or methods of worship that should bring us together (or divide us) but the common core of belief as expressed in the Nicean Creed. As to biblical literalcy in being the exact word of God there is always the problem of mistranslation and misunderstanding. Thou shall not kill vs thou shall not murder is perhaps the classic example (1). 1) The Isrealites sure violated that prohibition when they finally entered the Promised Land.

[@mpetersen6]

If these two congregations were that autonomous and inward looking in my opinion this begins to border on being a cult. I find it hard to believe a two congregations of any size in a town or small city would be unaware the other existed.

[@jameswallace3981]

Christian church elder here. I wish I could say I was surprised! Thanks for helping out, though! 🙂

[@The_Autistic_Christian]

As far as I know, there isn't even any sort of central roster of churches that claim to be in the movement. Which can make finding one in your area, if you're specifically looking for one, extremely difficult.

[@cautiousletsplays]

I'm the minister of an independent Christian Church in Indiana. I have to say you certainly did your homework. This is probably the most accurate representation I've seen. Thanks for putting in all the hard work.

[@jtd3421]

Josh, I am a minister at a Christian Church in southern KY. Great video. Thankful for your inclusion of my favorite seminary professor and one of my mentors Jack Cottrell. We sure miss him a great deal. One of the greatest Restoration Movement theologians in our history.

[@DamonNomad82]

Amen! My parents were students of his in the early 1990s.

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Amen. Josh does great work!

[@solong53]

Deja vu

[@Kejogre]

As a Restoration Movement minister I thank you for a fairly in depth and accurate representation of our churches.

[@brucestoker2130]

Ditto!

[@digitalnomad9985]

Wow, a whole video about li'l old us. I had no idea we were now nearly as big as the CoC (NI) and bigger than DoC. (More due to their shrinkage than our growth, I'm afraid.)

[@danielsell7598]

The Reformation was about restoring the Church to New Testament Christianity. The Restoration Movement is superfluous.

[@FamilyHomeTheater]

Chuck Missler, a popular bible teacher who has gone to see the Lord, once said that Christians like to set up circular firing squads. With that in mind, I am grateful for this factual presentation on restoration movement churches absent from the straw man attacks so common among these sorts of videos. Thanks!

[@Michael_Walsh]

Great video! It is quite interesting how many overlapping doctrines these congregations share with us Roman Catholics. The necessity of baptism, obedience to Christ, repentance of sin, perseverance to the end, holding the original New Testament apostolic faith, etc. We accept all who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who trust in the Blood of Jesus alone for their salvation as fellow Christians. There is much misunderstanding about this out there, so for anyone reading this, if you have been baptized in the name of the Trinity and believe in Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Catholic Church sees you as a true brother or sister in Christ. We would say that by our common faith and baptism we have a true but impaired communion with each other, and we pray that all human divisions would cease and that we would all be one, in accord with the desire and prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ. God bless you all, Christian or non-Christian, and if you are not yet a Christian, I encourage you to accept Christ as your risen Lord and Savior, and then be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If you are not yet sure about Christianity, we have classes at every Catholic Church where you are free to learn about and explore Chrisitanity without any obligations. It used to be called RCIA, the name was recenrly changed to OCIA. If you ask about either, they'll know what you are talking about. Many people find it to be a great introduction to the Christian faith regardless of what Church they end up in, if any. God be with you all!

[@The_Autistic_Christian]

Thank you for this fairly even and fair understanding of the Independent (aka Restorationist) Christian Churches! I've been involved in these churches most of my life. There is a lot of misunderstanding today about exactly what we believe, and we get confused a lot with the non-instrumental Churches of Christ, but also with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and certain other cults, largely I believe because we began around the same time as they did, and people misunderstand what we mean when we use the term "Restorationist"-we do NOT mean by that that the Christianity was lost and we are now the only ones who are Christian (as the cults do); we mean that we would like to one day see the body of Christ restored to unity, by restoring worship to its primitive, New Testament form and abandoning the doctrines and traditions of men that have been built up over time but are not Biblical and stand in the way of unity. A lofty goal perhaps, but we'll begin with ourselves and hope others will follow our example. 🙂 Theologically, I tend to think of us as being fairly close to most Baptists or (believe it or not) some Calvary Chapel churches (although Independent Christian Churches are generally cessationist or at least reserved on their opinions on the perpetuity of the more miraculous spiritual gifts, as you noted). I've worshipped in Baptist, Lutheran and other churches before and certainly do not think we are the "only" Christians, as you correctly pointed out is our position. We also get accused of being Pelagian, because a lot of us don't hold to a doctrine of Eternal Security (although this is by no means universal, and I tend to believe both positions are true, depending on the point of view) and by our practice of Baptism as a part of the salvation process. My personal view on the latter is this: Baptism is commanded as the seal and outward sign of entry into the new covenant in the same way that circumcision was the seal and outward sign of entry into the old covenant, and that the faith of anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ but refuses his commandment to be baptized is suspect.

[@DamonNomad82]

One of the reason outsiders sometimes confuse us for Mormons is because Joseph Smith borrowed a lot of our terminology from an apostate early Christian Church pastor named Sidney Rigdon, who turned Mormon and was part of Smith's inner circle, to the point that when Smith arrogantly ran for President of the United States in 1844, he chose Rigdon as his VP candidate.

[@leebereacoc]

9:55 I am a minister in the indie CoC and a graduate of MACU (originally Roanoke Bible College) I thank you for a fair representation of our movement.

[@jameswallace3981]

Excellent video! I've watched many of yours and enjoyed them all. I'm delighted you finally got around to my branch of Christianity! I think you presented our movement clearly and accurately. 🙂

[@ReadyToHarvest]

Thanks James!

[@DamonNomad82]

At last! Thank you for covering my group fairly and accurately! The Non-Instrumentalists (Church of Christ) and the Disciples tend to get all the attention from those outside the Restoration Movement. Many Non-Instrumentalists (whether it's out of simple ignorance or actual malicious dishonesty) tend to lump us with the liberalized, denominational Disciples, who are less like us than the Non-Insties are. Also, 100th Like!

[@tjmaverick1765]

As a church of Christ member, I agree. This was informative. I'd also like to see an effort to reunite both groups considering we started out as a unity movement.

[@DamonNomad82]

@@tjmaverick1765 I agree wholeheartedly! We have far more in common than not.

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Maybe it was just all those that couldn't play music very well ? One problem of modern organized religions is dependence on music and singing, which is just fine but kind of sad for all of us that can't play music and can't sing ! :-D

[@DamonNomad82]

@@SeaJay_Oceans I would say that it had more to do with the economics of the late 19th and early 20th Century than with skill (or the lack of it) at playing music. Most of the churches that used instruments at the time were larger churches in richer, urban areas (mostly in the northern US) whose members could afford an organ. Most of the churches that didn't were smaller churches in poorer, rural areas (mostly in the southern US) whose members couldn't afford an organ. Sadly, it ended up becoming a doctrinal issue for some, as opposed to a mere style issue.

[@broz1488]

Well you allow musical instruments and women preachers, you sound pretty much like the disciples, perhaps just the conservative version of them.

[@Retro6502]

This is the type of church I grew up in. So great to see a video, it's really hard to find info on it and explain it to someone. It took me until my 30s to find out about the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and realize that our Church was a "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" church, as the church itself rarely talks about its history.

[@brucestoker2130]

I had the same experience. I didn't know we had a history until I took "Restoration History" at one of "our" Bible colleges.

[@joshuas1834]

Same. Googling "Christian Church" isn't exactly helpful😅

[@PavelR1]

What i love about your content, is that you speak nothing but the truth. Research based on reliable data. Keep it up!

[@sunrhyze]

Thank you for doing this video. The church I have begun attending recently is an independent Christian church, and I had just assumed it was non-denominational until one of the pastors pointed out that this is an actual denomination! It's so helpful to understand some of the background of the independent churches. I particularly enjoyed "Christians only, but not the only Christians."

[@OnlineShelby]

Non-denominational, but with strong affiliations with like congregations. There are no structures above an individual congregation. 🙂

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

Definetly a denomination. They try to say they aren't but have everything in common with others but are "independent"

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@obeyGoddefytyrants It's a question of definition. Etymologically, "denomination" means "naming" and we have a name, but most denominations consider the denominational POLITY to be the defining essence of a denomination, so you will mislead more folk than you will inform by the application of the term. I think that in these days in particular the distinction has served us well. We have escaped the leftist "long march through the institutions" which has plagued denominations, universities, bureaucracies, and corporations by dint of not having a target for infiltration.

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

@@digitalnomad9985 the churches I'm familiar with use it dishonestly to assume a seeker friendly demographic. They teach as though they are nonndenominational in a sense that they do not have a dogma. This is a lie and quite dishonest. The COC and the CCs will be considered a denomination by everyone except themselves. There is nothing a cambelite can say to change that your organization functions that way. The Spire network and organizations like the Solomon foundation prove this.

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

@@OnlineShelby unless they choose to work with the Solomon foundation

[@OnlineShelby]

This is great. Thank you for a great representation of the movement!

[@calebatha4145]

Great video! Grew up in an Independent Christian congregation and am attending a Baptist university. Interestingly, I have found the theological principles of my upbringing to be similar to low church Anglicanism (aside from some aspects of worship style and baptism). This has led me to be unexpectedly much more comfortable in an ACNA context than in the Baptist megachurches of my peers.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I think most Baptist would be uncomfortable in a Baptist Mega church.

[@erc9468]

What is very interesting to me is the breadth of practice and belief in ACNA. Seems that there are churches that nearly anyone can be comfortable in. Low church baptists, mid-church Presbyterians, high church ex Catholics. Makes me wonder if it’s really one denomination.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

@@erc9468 I think it would surprise most people how many similarities churches have. I think we emphize the differences so much we forget we are all Christians. there are a lot of core beleifs that we all share

[@erc9468]

@@benjaminwatt2436 There are of course similarities of belief among anyone who is an orthodox protestant. But the *practice* side is extremely different. A baptisty "bible church" megachurch is a very different thing than a confessional denominational church. The way you worship God in practice is in my opinion almost more important than the things you believe on paper.

[@munkee59]

Ok, this video was really helpful. I had pre-judged these congregations as "probably lame half-hearted evangelicals." Yeah, that says more about me then them. However, they have a lot more views than I would have expected that lineup better with ancient Christian communions. Very, very interesting stuff. Nice work, Josh.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

They are Protestant. The whole point of the Protestant movement was to move the church back to the early teachings of Christ and the Apostles

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you,, Brother Joshua. Very informative.🌹⭐🌹

[@dustinduffie4409]

We are members of the independent Christian church.Of family.Yes and we love it

[@jahintx]

Nice work, Josh. This is a very thorough and accurate description.

[@jec1ny]

Fun Fact; James Garfield (20th president of the US) was a Stone Cambell Restorationist who became "born again," and was subsequently baptized in the very cold waters of the Chagrin River on March 4, 1850. By coincidence, March 4th was also the day presidents were sworn into office in those days. Sadly, his tenure was cut short by a madman with a pistol.

[@DamonNomad82]

That's similar to my family's tradition of being baptized in cold water. My maternal grandfather was baptized in a cold Tibetan lake (his parents were missionaries to Tibet), my mom was baptized in a cold mountain stream in northern Thailand (where her parents were missionaries). Also, President Garfield was a brilliant scholar, who could write a Bible verse in Latin with one hand and in Greek with the other hand, at the same time! Another President from the Restoration Movement (though one that is a less positive than Garfield) was President Lyndon Johnson.

[@jec1ny]

@@DamonNomad82 Garfield might well have been a very good president had he lived. LBJ was a Disciple of Christ which is a product of the fragmentation of the movement. The DoCs are definitely the most liberal branch of contemporary Restorationists.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

Fun Correction: President James Garfield didn't "become born again" and subsequently get baptized ...to Garfield getting baptized and becoming "born again" were the exact same thing...In like manner a politically important Evangelical, once asked President Ronald Reagan (also raised in the Restoration movement) if he had been "born again"... Ron said enthusically recounted his own baptism experience...The idiot Evangelical probed further "yes..but are you born again?"..."that's what I just said" Dutch replied.....

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@DamonNomad82 ....also Ronald Reagan

[@larrymcclain8874]

President Garfield preached in the actual current building for the Mooresville, AL Church of Christ, c. 1855, in historic Mooresville, AL. What makes this more interesting is that this was during the Civil War, and Garfield was on the side of the Union Troops, yet took time out to preach for the southern brethern.

[@stevenator0281]

I love this channel.

[@Disappointed739]

I appreciate this video, and found it accurate to my memory of the Christian Churches I was in as a youth. As a side note, I recently ended up in a dispuit with a non-denominational church's on the issue of baptism. It was amazing how a plurality of views was distasteful enough to the pastor that it ended up becoming a large issue. I worked extensively with the assistant chair of the session to get the session to back off from a very narrow doctrine and revert back to a plurality of beliefs to avoid any further conflict or division. Reverting to that position also served to preserve the job of the head pastor, who, despite his insistance on a new doctrinal statement, did not need to lose his job over it. Ah, the hills we die on.... Sigh...

[@TheGullibleSkeptic]

I am interested on this topic. Will you describe which position the head pastor was taking? How did the wording end up once resolved? Any further elaboration would be appreciated.

[@roadrunner3563]

Thank you. I grew up in this Church (independent Christian Church) as a child, although was never actually religious and did not continue. However, at least in my area (I don't live there now), the congregation, while conservative, consisted by far some of the most intelligent, thinking people as compared to the other local churches (I attended most of them with other relatives). They just seemed to use their brain more to think things through. I went back for a funeral recently and one aspect has deteriorated slightly and that is the music went from solemn piano/organ to a mix of that and guitar/drums/etc. I find that style of music to be less respectful for the purpose of worship.

[@thes6550]

lol. One of those guys

[@cindiloowhoo1166]

Make a joyful noise unto The Lord! Psalm100 ~~~ go where you feel joyful and have smart people ~~~

[@homescholed]

I was a Catholic for the first roughly 15 years of my life. Walked away because I felt it was corrupt, but I have since come back to a church that would fall under this branch. I love it and it’s great to have a community that is solely focused on serving God and not just serving “the church”

[@StartofBroadcastDay]

Seeing Cottrell and Cincinnati Christian U get brought up was funny to see, I always love seeing the comments of people saying "Hey, that was my church/college/pastor!" so I wanted to contribute. CCU being closed down was a huge shame, I was considering attending when I first felt called to ministry.

[@Rossimac_]

Trevor Devage… my cross the hall roommate from LCC. Excellent quote, Trev! 4:40

[@kentdavis7438]

Well done. Always factual.

[@cindiloowhoo1166]

I went to an International Church of Christ (usually ...of City Name) for a while. At first it was very nice, love and friend bombed, included in everything - they did not own their own church buildings; rented a space alternated with smaller groups in home churches ~~ What was "friendship" became berating me for skipping church to spend time with my favorite relatives from out of state; "Audited my Bible - I am a note taker about what was applicable to me (I was too worldly); then there was overheard hushed talk of required "contribution envelopes" (Mr Whoo NOT agreeable) and "going out to evangelize & disciple." (not my personal forte). There was to be a weekly meeting with my "Discipler," who was not the very nice lady i befriended (was lured in by) in the Beginning. Shortly thereafter, I started seeing articles re the organization. I believe it started out as "International Church of Christ - Boston." I forget the name of the leader/founder. I was/am sad in a way. It was nice for awhile, but the red flags started popping up.

[@DamonNomad82]

The ICC is an extremist breakaway wing of the extremist breakaway wing (Church of Christ, non-institutional) of the hardline breakaway wing (Church of Christ, non-instrumental) of the Restoration Movement. When you look at their history, your experience is more or less what one would expect from attending one of their churches. I had an interesting enough time going to a church that was one step shorter on the extremist ladder (Church of Christ, non-institutional).

[@yiannisd8286]

as an orthodox Christian, I find it very interesting that in many ways their theology is closer to ours than a lot of protestantism, and in some ways even than Roman Catholicism

[@DamonNomad82]

Those of us who are into theology are also aware of those areas of common ground with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The similarities are largely due to Campbell, Stone and other early leaders of the Restoration Movement going directly to the Bible for their doctrines and consciously avoiding the interpretations of the various Protestant denominations they had come out of. This led them to bypass doctrines (such as Augustinianism, which is extremely influential in both Roman Catholic and most branches of Protestant theology) that had originated outside of Scripture over the centuries and which Eastern Christianity had never adopted.

[@larrymcclain8874]

Augustine had been before he became Christian a Manichean Gnostic. Unfortunately, he never quite gave all of that up. Calvin's main influence was Augustine. That explains much about Calvinism and its similarities to Gnostic teaching.

[@user-tw8ct7cq5k]

Love to see a video over Western Rite Orthodoxy!

[@timnewman1172]

I love how they reject all creeds as being "too confusing", then literally uses the Apostle's Creed to describe what they believe!

[@microcolonel]

Pray for them to see the true Church, rather than ridiculing them.

[@yikes2180]

Exactly! Perhaps, they thought that creeds were from the Roman Church (they didn't do their history class properly) so they just rejected them altogether but when confessing what they believe, they just unconsciously copied the terminologies used in the creeds. It proved that creeds (esp. the Apostles’ Creed) summarizes the core teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

[@traceyedson9652]

That was from a congregation’s website. Rejecting creeds can run the range from ignoring them to seeing them as a useful tool. To quote it isn’t to require its recitation at Baptism.

[@alexpietsch7997]

13:46 Hey its the guy who taught me how to teach a bible lesson!

[@ezdboy]

I grew up in the independent Christian Church. I went to Church of Christ some in college because it was walking distance from campus and the Christian Church was far from campus. I haven't been in church since 1986 but as a result of my study of music history and my degree in music I realized that the Church of Christ is right on musical instruments in the church this issue actually mattered.

[@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578]

I switched from one of these to a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod church. Leaving Nondenominationalism for Confessional Lutheranism was the best decision I ever made.

[@Hark1677]

If you like Confessional Lutheranism, you’d love Confessional Reformed. 😎😆

[@timnewman1172]

The LCMS has the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as the basic explanation of faith. Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide ...

[@Hark1677]

I was in the LCMS before I became a Reformed Baptist. Grew up in St. Louis, the headquarters of LCMS, and went to a LCMS university in Nebraska. Still think the 1689 is the purest expression of the Christian faith.

[@traceyedson9652]

Shoulda kept going and arrived at apostolic orthodoxy! 😉😁

[@johnmark6628]

When you say that you are a Confessional Lutheran what does that mean? . The Biblical way of confessing your sins against each other to one another to promote brotherhood within the church: . . ***James 5:16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. . . Or the catholic way of trying to confess your sins against God to a man in a box?

[@DamonNomad82]

11:50 Dr. Krause goes to the same church I do!

[@Hark1677]

I went to a Lutheran school in Nebraska. Since then, I have become a Baptist.

[@traceyedson9652]

I spent the first 25 of my life in a fairly strict mid-western strain of these churches before embracing apostolic Christian Orthodoxy. I didn’t “leave” but felt the teachings were fulfilled in the ancient & original faith. I feel that the Restorationist movement made two assumptions that, despite it desire, kept it Protestant: 1. the assumption of Sola Scriptura, which is impossible and betrays an exaltation of Western Renaissance priorities; and 2. an unbiblical, undeveloped ecclesiology, which never shed its Scottish Presbyterian/English Baptist roots. That said, it got some things, from an EO perspective, right. Certainly small but notable similarities exist between the two communions that would be difficult to explain to “outsiders.” Thanks again for a spot-on video. You have a gift for dispassionate accuracy and letting folks explain themselves. Kudos!

[@johnmark6628]

So you left them because they relied too much on the Bible?

[@JohnPaul-ol5zl]

​@johnmark6628 Agree on the question. There are two dangers a Christian must look out for: 1) Misinterpreting the Bible for one's own damnation. 2) Allowing an individual or group of individuals to be the Authority Over the Bible and God/Jesus Christ. The first is self-explanatory. The second is regarding such individuals that put themselves between God and man. It is good for one to fellowship and such in Studying the Bible to learn From Each other. But the Pope, Kenneth Coplan, Cash Luna, and the like have no governance on what I should or should not do on my road to Salvation.

[@traceyedson9652]

@@JohnPaul-ol5zl #2 is arbitrary. Since we are not Muslims and did not receive the Bible through the hands of an angel or the Lord Himself, some other “individual or group” had to be involved since the Holy Spirit doesn’t just work amorously and Platonically through mere forms & ideas. He works through means. I suggest, with the Apostles & the apostolic fathers, “the Church, the pillar & ground of the Truth.”

[@richardwalling9695]

I was baptized in the Christian church 64 years ago. I no longer practice the religion. I deem it like my father did, it's too narrow. My brother graduated from what was Lincoln Christian College which is now a University. He was preacher for about 5 years but gave it up and became a soldier for 20 years.

[@cinemint]

"We have absolutely no creeds. No creeds at all. However, if you disagree with the statement, 'The Bible is the infallible and authoritative word of God', then we do not fellowship with you." "We do not have a denomination. However, we are associated with churches who call themselves 'Church of Christ' or 'Disciples of Christ'." "We do not hold tradition at high value. However, we stand fast by the traditions surrounding our interpretation of scripture, as well as which books are canonical." The double standards hurt my head

[@lupea8079]

😅😅😅

[@cosmichrist]

Great video.

[@ninjason57]

So what happens when a believer in these churches ask questions like "How do we know these 66 books in the Bible are the inspired word of God?" and "whose interpretation of said scripture is correct?"

[@johnmark6628]

They would rely on the Bible. Just like the apostles did. Everything that was told and witnessed by them about the life of Jesus, and through the Holy Spirit is backed by old testament scripture. The Bible is a book that can be understood by reading the full context. It's not a mysterious poetic book that needs deciphered. You simply read it in its full context. If you don't understand something, then keep reading.

[@kristaps5296]

​@@johnmark6628 Wow, a lot of words but no answer.

[@johnmark6628]

@@kristaps5296 "a lot of words" You're a pictures guy eh?

[@kristaps5296]

@@johnmark6628 You're a wordy-but-say-nothing type of guy, huh? Like politicians.

[@johnmark6628]

@@kristaps5296 You didn't understand "read the book in it's full context?" That was too many words for you?

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

18:03 I agree in most cases that unfaithfulness is the sin, but sometimes the unfaithfulness is the divorce

[@Calango741]

Interesting...

[@alanrouse1]

Quoting from Truth Magazine (1975) regarding the split between instrumental and non-instrumental sides: "While these abstract topics were at the heart of what was done at Sand Creek on this summer day, the personal and human side of the problem should not be ignored. The Declaration had bluntly stated that fellowship was to be withdrawn from those with whom the conservatives could not agree. This meant, in practical terms, that lifelong friends could not worship together unless somebody relented. It meant that women who had spent mornings on the back porch snapping beans or putting up pickles together may never meet again in a house of worship. Men who had shucked corn and baled hay and swapped stories together for years would never share participation in a mutual worship service again. Children who had played and hunted and swam together would never again attend services with their friends because their parents could not agree on how to run the church. It meant that family ties would be strained to the breaking point, and that tears and heartbreak would ensue as a result of hurt feelings and injured pride. Never again would peace reign in the community. All attempts at communication and understanding and compromise was to be halted, never to be resumed again. It was simply finished; forgotten."

[@alanrouse1]

Adding J. W. McGarvey's comment on the division: "That a vast amount of evil has been occasioned by the introduction of instrumental music into Christian worship is undeniable. Beginning with the first instance of it among us which I can remember-that which caused a schism in the church in St. Louis in the year 1869-its progress has been attended by strife, alienation, and division, with all their attendant evils, in hundreds of congregations."

[@richardhazlett7070]

The original prohibition of instruments seems strange after reading Psalm 150. However, congregations must be pleased that praise, at least indoors, with clashing cymbals is now frowned upon.

[@DamonNomad82]

6:11 Just an FYI, Dr. Jack Cottrell's last name was pronounced "COTT-roll", not "cuh-TRELL". As one who was acquainted with him in passing (my parents were his students at CCU in the early 1990s when I was a young child), I've noticed that those who have only seen his name in print and not heard it spoken tend to understandably mispronounce it. Thanks again, and great video!

[@philodendron6]

Another most interesting video.

[@Yellowblam]

How do you not go cross eyed with all these mentions of ‘Christian’ and ‘Christ’?

[@Lorrainecats]

Wish there were one of these churches in our community.

[@traceyedson9652]

There may be. Like many denominational congregations currently, not all publish a name “Christian Church” or “Church of Christ.”

[@saintanthonythegreatorthod8872]

If you believe the "original autographs" of Holy Scripture were inspired how can you justify having only 66 books in your Bible? The original canon approved at the Council of Carthage in the year 397 has 76 books.

[@digitalnomad9985]

The cannon was closed before the second century. As early as 120 AD, (Muratori) Christians started making lists of the books written by the apostles and prophets, lest people forget which books were prophetic and get them mixed up with apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD-under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book. The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine). Nicea was concerned with how Christians should articulate their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. Thus it was the birthplace of the Nicean creed. When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right? This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be. Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there. This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.” This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.

[@TheWillmore]

Great video. As a former student of Cottrell, his name is pronounced Cot-troll

[@Kyle-vb3fz]

In SC we have a World Council of Independent Christian Churches. I wonder if they’re related? Hmm…

[@Briannorton163]

No relation, though share a name.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

Non-denominational but under the wide and oft nebulous umbrella ☔ of Protestantism I'd say?

[@tonyu5985]

Non-denominational of Protestantism to them just means we are not the work of the devil. How do they know they are not the work of the devil did God tell them they are not?

[@arkansasrebel348]

The Church of Christ is a denomination, and so is the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ…

[@traceyedson9652]

@@tonyu5985perhaps you didn’t listen carefully?

[@johnmark6628]

A protestant is someone that belongs to the churches that were formed by catholics who tried to reform the catholic church. . Only those churches are protestants. . So if a person belongs to a church that did not come out of that movement, then they are not protestants. . I know the catholic church likes to claim that everyone that disagrees with them is protestant, but this is a fallacy.

[@davidllewis4075]

Have somewhat vague childhood memory of our church changing name from Church of Christ to Christian Church.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

an acapella churches of Christ Campbellite concurs with your concise "conservative" Christian Church conclusions...

[@weddingsbyhamilton]

I grew up in a Christian church a part of the Restoration movement. It was a great biblical church. I am glad to move on now, however.

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

Great job as usual

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

Church is not a Place, it is a People.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

Church is the Body of Christ.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

then there is no penalty for violating Matthew 18:15-17

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@bernhardbauer5301 The catholic church yes as it is the one made up of all believers. The visible church still matters a lot though.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

@@MasterKeyMagic People don't exist outside of Space-Time. If you look at ἐκκλησία from an exegetical perspective, you would understand that it refers to the Congregation, where ever they are congregating, and not the Location itself.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@MasterKeyMagic Jesus used the word ekklesia. But at that time He was still alive. Jesus Himself spoke to the ekklesia, the jewish counsel, but that did not help. The Church started after He was dead, buried and risen.

[@ltcajh]

An old retired minister didn’t believe there was any other valid church he could attend. We left when heresy was taught, and supported in Sunday School. The Trinity, as well as the Niceness Creed were denied as a Catholic concoction. He believed Jesus did not exist until the Logos split off at the incarceration. Never mind any discussion of the nature of the Holy Spirit! Even when I proved Jesus created the world the pastor and this man would not believe. Not a soul, other than my wife and I thought it important enough to part ways! I called the teacher a hypocrite for singing, “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.” Not only that, the pastor pretended to believe in the Trinity when we first joined!

[@K2mtp]

I grew up in independent Baptist or Garb churches. I had problems with premillennialism among other things. Started going to a Christian church and the preaching is solid. I found it odd the other day a woman baptized a girl and they practice communion every Sunday. I don't believe that baptism is part of salvation like they do so I could never become a member. That being said I don't find that to be a stumbling block because we are allowed to have different options and still call each other Brothers in Christ!

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

2:46 Is there a KENWOOD or YAESU?

[@anarchorepublican5954]

"Rock-n' Roll" Restorationism.......

[@Jerome616]

Still waiting for that video on Catholicism 😇

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

What about a video on Zionists ? A great number of people are waiting the 'Rebuilding of the Temple', which might be under construction very soon ?

[@Akrafena]

>Catholicism >Founded in 1054 by the Pope of the time after the Great Schism, dissolving the Church of the West >Claims to be the original one >Everyone else are heretics >Beata Maria scis esse mihi animam tam rectam, ut qua jure gaudeam, beata Maria, et jure me majorem quam lascivum vulgus reri audeam. Dic mihi, Maria: si saltantem cerno, cur ejus oculus me ustilat? Perceptae, conspectae sol nigro crine nectitur et in me deflagrando furiat. In igni Maligni hoc corpus ardet, nec furores indigni peccata pellunt haec. Nec error est nec criminor: nam strix Athingana comburit aegrum cor. Nec criminor, si, Domine, fecisti Satan fortiorem homine. Defende, Maria, me a sirenis vocibus: remota nobis illa taeda sit! Confuta Smaragdam et addic flammis acribus aut in hac una manu prae da sit. Maligni cum igni est atro tibi res. Aut mea aut ligni: alterutrius es! Miserere ejus, miserere mei, sed aut praeda mea aut ligni est!

[@DamonNomad82]

@@Akrafena Was that the Latin version of "Hellfire" from the 1990s Disney adaptation of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"? I love it!

[@tincanboat]

These are commonly called " outlaw churches" it started with Martin Luther.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

No church should have a dictatorial governing body above them. I love the Baptist churches because even those in a conference or association really under ruled by the body. Congregations should have to answer to God about their conduct. I left a Reformed church because of the bullying the classis and synod to our congregation. You'd think they were God they way they pushed their way around. Be Christians and worship the Triune God and leave the governing alone.

[@digitalnomad9985]

The old saw "Two heads are better than one" doesn't apply when the first Head is the Godhead.

[@ScottPalmer-mp1we]

Every church should be independent in practice and government. I see no Biblical justification for a hierarchal body whether nationally or worldwide. Churches can certainly have voluntary fellowship with others, come to the aid of others (like the collection for the saints at Corinth and Galatia for the church at Jerusalem. When people refer to "the early church" there is a problem in that there was no early church as a collective body. If someone speaks of the "history of the church", it should be churches, not some monolithic body.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I've always had a bone to pick with Churches that hide behind the "non-denomination" term, when you have mnay churches nationwide, have similar core beleifs and distinct practices. I think we as Protestants should be clear about denominations instead of hiding from the term. We have embraced denominations in its usefulness, but get shy on the actual term. which is why many Catholics and Orthodox lose respect for protestants.

[@digitalnomad9985]

It's a question of definition. Etymologically, "denomination" means "naming" and we have a name, but most denominations consider the denominational POLITY to be the defining essence of a denomination, so you will mislead more folk than you will inform by the application of the term. I think that in these days in particular the distinction has served us well. We have escaped the leftist "long march through the institutions" which has plagued denominations, universities, bureaucracies, and corporations by dint of not having a target for infiltration. As for the Catholics and Orthodox, they are the ones that gave Church polity a bad name.

[@albertos.h2540]

La división es propia de una clara obra de Lucifer, dividir, dividir y más dividir, propio del Protestantismo, busca la Ortodoxia cristiana y encontraras la original y primera *una, Iglesia de Jesucristo.😊☦️💜

[@willieclark2256]

I like your shirt

[@kevinmatthews7180]

Confusion. “We agree to disagree” doctrine.

[@digitalnomad9985]

In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.

[@danielsell7598]

Also the motto of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). @@digitalnomad9985

[@thomasdalton1508]

How does ordination work in churches that don't recognise any organisational structure beyond local elders? Are there still bishops that claim to be part of the apostolic succession that ordain pastors? What role do they have?

[@DamonNomad82]

Having observed a few Christian Church ordinations, they are done by the elders of the church the one being ordained is a member of.

[@thomasdalton1508]

@@DamonNomad82 Do they not subscribe to the idea of apostolic succession or do they somehow claim that approach is consistent with it?

[@DamonNomad82]

@@thomasdalton1508 The term "apostolic succession" would be quite alien to the average member of a Restoration Movement church, as it isn't a term that appears in the Bible itself. Remember, there is no denominational structure above the preacher and elders of each individual church, so the kind of "standard" position one would get from a denomination just isn't there. That means that those who were even aware of "apostolic succession" as a concept would each have their own position on it. As church traditions outside of the Bible (such as reciting creeds, use of specific vestments for clergy, or relying on the writings other than the Bible itself, for example) were consciously avoided by the early members of the Movement, most would likely dismiss it as an extrabiblical man-made human opinion and therefore unimportant. A few might claim a sort of succession through a "remnant" of pre-Protestant groups like the Waldensians who were persecuted as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but that would be relatively rare.

[@larrymcclain8874]

The local church follows the biblical examples found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and then they select those men who qualify. The names are put up before the congregation, and then if there are no serious objections, they become the congregation's elders (bishop/overseers, same office). The only serious objections that are considered are any characteristics of that person who disagree or conflict with the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

[@jameswallace3981]

@thomasdalton1508 They do not subscribe to that. They view the development of the monarchial episcopate as a departure from the examples of church government given in the New Testament. They do not believe the apostles have any successors.

[@SantaFe19484]

Making a theological position from silence is usually not wise.

[@mattkramer7688]

Aside from the infant/adult baptism issue, this is basically Anglicanism. Speaking as a Anglican myself.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

📚🧐.....ahhhh????..... aren't Angilcans "High Church" Liturgy and governed by Bishops ?...and sprinkle...etc. etc.

[@DamonNomad82]

There are some very big differences beyond pedobaptism vs credobaptism. Anglicans are Augustinian, independent Christian Churches are not. Anglicans (at least of the "High Church" variety) tend to wear clerical vestments, have a liturgy, and present as a lot more "Catholic" than independent Christian Church members. Anglicans also have a denominational structure, which the independent Christian Churches make a point of avoiding. Also (in part due to the aforementioned denominational structure) Anglicans have, in general, liberalized to a far greater extent than is the case for most independent Christian Churches, as the lack of a denominational structure or authority keeps individual churches from "pulling" the others to the left.

[@DanSme1]

Despite the verbal gymnastics, 1) congregational members are taught a transitional Petrine regeneration that includes 'baptismal regeneration,' 2) an overwhelming majority hold to the sovereign will of lost sinners in redemption, and 3) Israel's New Covenant as the basis for the Holy Spirit's work during the period between Acts 2 and the Millennial Return of the Risen Jesus Christ. For those who have studied theological history in depth, one discovers there's often a unique irony to claims of being entirely free of the traditions of Christendom. The Christian life is a step-by-step journey from New Birth to Glory in the New Heavens and New Earth.

[@brucealanwilson4121]

Where do the Christion Union Church & Churchvof Christ in Christian Union.

[@anarchorepublican2.015]

...those are unrelated to Stone Campbell Restorationism ....having roots its in Methodist Episcopal Church

[@brucealanwilson4121]

@@anarchorepublican2.015 Thank you.

[@hishamw6755]

Thanks Josh for this video. Maybe I have missed it somewhere, what denomination are you affiliated with?

[@itsROMPERS...]

This channel helps me to understand what different churches think. Overall, the more I hear, the more Christianity itself just makes no sense. When I think of it as an objective system dealing with things that are supposed to be real, it leads into a million different directions. But when I think of it as a man-made system of behavior, every single detail makes sense. Christian faith make things easier on the believer but harder on everyone else.

[@Golden_writes550]

This is scary. So many different teaching's and beliefs with the Bible alone doctrine. Hmm so confusing, I was a Protestant for 29 yrs and a study like this led me to the Orthodox Church.

[@christianodenwald]

What are the main differences to Baptists?

[@David-vh8ij]

I would say Baptists believe Baptism is a command but not necessary for salvation.

[@DamonNomad82]

"Baptists" covers a huge variety of churches and denominations, each with their own beliefs. There is also considerable variety among Christian Churches due to the lack of a governing body beyond the individual congregations. The biggest differences are that the Christian Churches affirm baptismal regeneration while Baptists usually don't, and that Baptists tend to believe "once saved always saved" and the Christian Churches do not.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

Baptists are wrong...and arrogant

[@LindoMchunu]

Di is this the reformation movement Edit: My bad, the question was: Is this the reformation movement?

[@digitalnomad9985]

I'm not sure that I understand your question. This refers t the "Restoration Movement". In the context of denominational history the only "Reformation" I can recall is the "Protestant Reformation" which is somewhat earlier, not quite the same thing.

[@LindoMchunu]

​​@@digitalnomad9985see edit Thanks.

[@sramdeojohn4428]

The kjv bible which churches of Christ uses don't know that the bible does not teach 'make diciples' cause no one or no local church of denominations can 'make diciples'. The bible does not use such an idea. Only Jesus by the Holy Spirit 'makes diciples'. 😌😌

[@larrymcclain8874]

I don't know where you get your information, but churches of Christ are not "KJV only" - not at all.

[@sramdeojohn4428]

@@larrymcclain8874 I am not saying churches of Christ are ' kjv only'... I am saying generally all Christian denominations started with the kjv bible according to history. In time past, even the JWs, organisation started with a KJVB and before that was the Geneva Bible. It is a fact that all Christian sects started with the English KJVB. But due to recent publications and various printers, we have today many versions and translations, even pervertions. 😕

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@sramdeojohn4428 The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Before Christ, there was a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek called the Septuagint (LXX). The New Testament books were written in Greek. Together this served as the Bible for the eastern Roman Empire, because the trade and international language of that whole part of the world was Greek, and almost every literate person in that region could read it. In the western part of the Empire, however, the trade and international language was Latin. So Gerome made a Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. During the Middle Ages fewer people knew Latin and it became a dead tongue of priests and scholars. In other parts of the world the Bible had been translated to other languages like Syriac, etc. During the Protestant Reformation, reformer Martin Luther was the first to translate the Bible to a vernacular language. His German translation was the basis of the first mass printed Bible, the Gutenburg Bible. Later Tyndale was the first to make an English translation, and he was executed for his pains. The Protestant Reformation was well underway, before King James of England comissioned an Authorized (by the already extant Church of England) Translation of the Bible into English, now often known as the King James Version of the Bible. "It is a fact that all Christian sects started with the English KJVB." No, it's not. There were denominations before the Vulgate, before the Gutenburg Bible, before the Geneva Bible, and before the KJV. The KJV has no influence outside of the English speaking world. Some modern translations are closer to the original in translation meaning, some are not. Some are more literal, some less. Most newer translations benefit from better modern knowledge of the most ancient extant manuscripts, some of which were not available when the KJV was translated. Some "versions" and "translations" (generally touted by sects) are deliberate distortions, but none of the modern mainstream editions are. You could do worse than the KJV, but you can now do better. "cause no one or no local church of denominations can 'make diciples'." To "make disciples" is the direct COMMAND of Jesus to his Church. This command is in the Bible, including the KJV, plain as a pikestaff (Matthew 28:18-20). All deeds are local. All commands are personal. Obey or rebel. We rely on the work of the Holy Spirit for conversion but (Romans 10:13) "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! " So, we have our part to play, and that is it. Speak, preach, send.

[@chadmeidl1140]

How can James 2:21-24 and Romans 4:3-10 NOT contradict? Romans 4:3-10 For what saith the scripture? *Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.* 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. *5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.* 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. *10How was it then reckoned?* when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? *Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.* James 2:21-24 *Was not Abraham our father justified by works,* when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by *works was faith made perfect?* 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. *24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.* Romans 4 and James 2 contradict each other if applied to the same person(s), groups of people at the same time. Paul states that our Justification is the same as Abrahams as it was reckoned in UNCIRCUMCSION. James states that Abraham was Justified when he offered Isaac. When did Abraham offer Isaac? Genesis Ch. 22. When was Abraham CIRCUMCISED? Genesis Ch. 17. Who is the Book of James written to? James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the *twelve tribes which are scattered abroad,* greeting. When was Abraham Justified according to Paul? Romans 4:10 *How was it then reckoned?* when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? *Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.* (v. 17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of *many nations,* ) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (v. 19-20) *And being not weak in faith* , he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the *deadness of Sara's womb:* *20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;* God reckoned righteousness to *Abram.* (Gen. 15:1-3, Gen.17:5) It is by FAITH. Genesis 15:4-6 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, *Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.* *6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.* Abraham was made a father of MANY NATIONS. (v. 17) He believed what God told him of his descendants and the stars (Gen. 15:5-6) as a GENTILE. He was Justified by FAITH. Years later after Isaac was born Abraham (His name had been changed) was given CIRCUMCISION (Gen. 17: 1-4) a COVENANT. He then offered Isaac being circumcised as was Justified by Faith AND WORKS as the first JEW.

[@larrymcclain8874]

Context is everything. Paul in Romans is specifically speaking of works of the Law of Moses, with an emphasis on circumcision (see Acts ch. 15 for the background). James, however, is generically referencing obedience to Christ (Heb. 5:9) as an accompaniment to one's faith. The comments of each writer are not congruent to each other. We may not ultimately be saved by our deeds, but we most assuredly will be judged by them (2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation. 20:11-15). Nevertheless, one still must make every effort to obey Christ in everything (Matthew 7:21-23; Romans 6:16), even though we may never do so perfectly (1 John 1:5-10).

[@walterlahaye2128]

Does one have to be a member of the church of Christ to obey the Gospel? YES! All other churches are manmade doctrines, which in fact are hellbound cemeteries!

[@broz1488]

Point 3 at the 24:54 mark. Where does the New Testament allow for women on occasion to teach and preach in Church? My Bible says women are to remain silent in the Church.

[@stevekohl5351]

Your error is in failing to look at the context in which Paul made his statement about women in the ministry.

[@broz1488]

@@stevekohl5351 your error is not giving me chapter and verse, as it is for point 3. But I'll listen to your interpretation of context that in any form or manner allows a woman to be an ordained preacher. Something that the Church in 2000 years has never permitted nor practiced. Only seen in these johnny come. lately churches with no foundation in Scripture. Allowing secular public opinion and not the Bible to determine church policy.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

🙄why....in the very same place where the New Testament allows Instrumental Music in worship...

[@broz1488]

@@anarchorepublican5954 yip, error begets error.

[@stevenstokes3000]

​@broz1488 In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul instructs women on how they should dress when prophesying at church. Further, Priscilla corrected the Apollos's incomplete theology. Phoebe served as Paul's letter carrier for the Book of Romans, a role which would have included explaining the content of the letter to its recipients. Nympha and Mary of Jerusalem hosted (perhaps led) house churches. Junia was called an "Apostle." Women were the first people to proclaim the Resurrection to a group of gathered disciples. In Galatians 3:28, Paul proclaims the equality (that is, "there is no" distinction) of men and women in the Body of Christ. In the OT, the prophets Deborah and Huldah authoritatively proclaimed the Word of God to adult men with authority. In Church early history, we have record of slave women called "deacons" who were tortured by the Romans, citing their leadership in the church. The three or four verses in Paul you referenced must be understood within the context of (1) their historical setting, (2) the OT stories Paul references, and (3) the rest of Scripture.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

Are you removing comments? because me and others are noticing some of our comments are not appearing and thats super annoying and frustrating

[@ReadyToHarvest]

No, I have not removed any comments on this video. Sometimes people report comments, or they get blocked as spam, or who knows what.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@ReadyToHarvest If thats the case then they seem to get taken down almost immediately. I'll reply and then refresh right away and its already gone

[@ReadyToHarvest]

Wish I could do something about it, but I'm in the dark as much as you are. @@MasterKeyMagic

[@troywagner7551]

Independent Pentecostal of East Tennessee with several friends and neighbors in the local churches of this fellowship particularly Westside Christian of Elizabethton. My present church is a short distance from Milligan College. Used to receive Christian Standard (a little dry) and the often interesting Lookout from my next door neighbor of the previously mentioned church. Oh and by the way Milligan has good cafeteria meals open to the public.

[@theKnightsofGod]

Love the information but the Campbellites are very confusing with the names.

[@theKnightsofGod]

@@Hark1677 very true but I'm simply talking about the naming not doctrines

[@Hark1677]

@@theKnightsofGodSorry. I commented on the wrong post lol. It is true though, seems to sound redundant, Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

[@theKnightsofGod]

@Hark1677 no worries lol I been talking to a few CoC folks and they insist they are the real thing but don't seem to acknowledge these other strands

[@anarchorepublican5954]

you're confused?...Imagine my confusion when I visit a "Church of Christ" with a rock band....

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@theKnightsofGod ...I'm a CoC minister and acknowledge the Christian Church as brethren...just wildly inconsistent "Rock'n Roll" Restorationists"...

[@albertos.h2540]

Vas muy rápido

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

These statements by the COC and CC are misleading the coc and cc are in fact a denomination with all the structure and organization of a denomination.

[@digitalnomad9985]

Where is their authoritative council and what is the phone number of their denominational authority? Point me to this structure of which you speak. As far as whether we are "denominations", it's a question of definition. Etymologically, "denomination" means "naming" and we have a name, but most denominations consider the denominational POLITY to be the defining essence of a denomination, so you will mislead more folk than you will inform by the application of the term. I think that in these days in particular the distinction has served us well. We have escaped the leftist "long march through the institutions" which has plagued denominations, universities, bureaucracies, and corporations by dint of not having a target for infiltration.

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

once again and you clearly know this it is subversive in nature. your denomination fears the name only because you feel there is a negative connotation of being a poart of such an organizat @@digitalnomad9985

[@UniversalistSon9]

I wonder if they’re universalist?

[@jenna2431]

Nobody needs a weekly book club to be a decent person who contributes to human flourishing.

[@GoddessTier]

After 25 years as a woman i sought a Masters of Divinity to start a travelling ministry of Red Letter Universalist Unitarianism bringing Christ in ALL the gospels, including the apocrypha, to a people crying out for the sacrament of separation of church & hate. Verily did many a christian in grothing wrathful righteousness threaten violence and indeed i have been attacked twice by the baptist faithful. Nevertheless, it is an irresistible, ineffable & supernatural calling to grace that i must follow. Be well, friends. 🙏🌎🌄

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

Unfortunately on a local level your denomination preaches they are the only ones who are the church of God.

[@digitalnomad9985]

No, we don't.

[@obeyGoddefytyrants]

@@digitalnomad9985 I'm sorry you disagree. Unfortunately they day because they are trying to "restore" the church back to 1st century church. That since they sre doing that and no ther church is they believe they are the big C the COC and CC's

[@JohnJones-ty6fj]

I’ve never heard that statement in 48 years of attending a Christian Church.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

🎤🎧🎹🥁🎸🎷🎵🎶.....The Christian Churches: Rock 'n Roll Restorationists

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

To have a Church, all you need is a Bible... The Bible will bring the Preacher, and the Word of God will bring the people... May the Holy Spirit of Truth guide them all in the Love and Salvation of Christ Jesus !

[@geordiewishart1683]

I await comments from papists who claim that you need apostolic succession, even though your teachings, doctrines, and dogmas are distinctly anti biblical.

[@MRizzio]

Sadly, the word 'may' really puts the Holy Spirit in a bind, because He cannot bless both truth and non-truth. This is the great challenge for each 'new' church that keeps popping up. We 'presume' that the Holy Spirit will do the impossible and both affirm and deny the faith and morals that have been passed down through the ages. This is an impossibility.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@geordiewishart1683anti-biblical like sola scriptura?

[@ihiohoh2708]

@@geordiewishart1683 I'm Protestant, but this idea of "me and my Bible" is very dangerous. You essentially have papacy over an entire church because that one man has all authority and is in charge of the theology of the church. Confessional churches with proper order and high educational requirements are better and safer.

[@michaelseay9783]

The only way to find the complete truth is to read the Bible yourself. There is no church denomination that is going to teach the entire truth. Denominations are designed to confuse. Read the Bible yourself, then do basic study on each of the main denominations and you will find each denomination gets 1 or 2 things biblically correct through truth, but it’s usually a different truth between denominations.

[@marksmale827]

There is so much about latter-day Protestantism, especially in the USA, that is illogical. The sort of extreme expression of it represented by independent churches was simply never envisaged by Father Martin Luther, its founder. And without the institutional church, the New Testament in its accepted form would simply not exist.

[@digitalnomad9985]

The canon in it's whole predates what you call the institutional church. I know that it is Catholic doctrine that there was a line of popes going back to Peter, but this is not historical. The cannon was closed before the second century. As early as 120 AD, (Muratori) Christians started making lists of the books written by the apostles and prophets, lest people forget which books were prophetic and get them mixed up with apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD-under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book. The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine). Nicea was concerned with how Christians should articulate their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. Thus it was the birthplace of the Nicean creed. When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right? This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be. Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there. This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.” This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.

[@marksmale827]

@@digitalnomad9985 Well, the Anglican theologians who taught my father church history at the University of Oxford in the 1940s were all up the spout then… I thought some of the Early Fathers, some of whom you mention, mentioned the Bishop of Rome in their writings?

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@marksmale827 There is a whole world of daylight between "Rome has a bishop" and the hierarchy of the magisterium, much less "apostolic succession".

[@marksmale827]

@@digitalnomad9985 Yes. Institutions develop over time. It’s normal and natural.

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@marksmale827 And we developed an institution where it's pointless for leftist to do the "long march through the institutions" thing and corrupt the denomination to liberal theology. The most a handful of bad actors can corrupt is a handful of congregations.

[@chadmeidl1140]

So this is an Independent Campbellite church.

[@marcaristide9769]

Forgive me if I’m ring but NONE of the churches provided for reference have the title “church of Christ.” I’ve only heard quotes from “…Christian Church” The churches of Christ wear the name church of Christ ONLY. In this video it seems to me that the churches of Christ are being confused yet again in the thousands of denominations that exist. If I am wrong about the mentioning of a reference from a “church of Christ” by him in this video please do correct me.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

...a few congregations in this fellowship still call themselves "Church of Christ (Christian)"...or "Church of Christ (instrumental)"...but its rare

[@ReadyToHarvest]

The churches I quoted are just a small subset of the churches in this movement. Here's some examples of ones that use "Church of Christ" in their name: www.stjoecofc.com/ kzbin.info www.northliberty.cc/overview

[@traceyedson9652]

@@ReadyToHarvestalso, strict non-instrumental congregations use “church of Christ” with the lower-case c to indicate it as descriptive and not titular. Those in the instrumental congregations tend to use an upper case C as a title. Odd but true. (Non-denominationalists can be just as sectarian in spirit!) I grew up in a particularly strict fellowship of instrumental Churches of Christ who looked askance at the ICC folks and thought the non-instrumentals were strict about the wrong things - like movies, tv and mixed bathing!

[@katerivers6117]

At one point, the Disciples of Christ churches in Michigan laid claim legally to the name "Christian Church". At that point, Independent Christian Churches changed their names to Church of Christ so that they were not legally under the Disciples. Many churches you hear of named "Church of Christ" are in Michigan or northern Indiana and Ohio. There are a few across the country as well, but most other places those are non instrumental churches. In michigan, many of the Churches of Christ have now gone back to "Christian Church" or a seeming non-denominational church name.

[@traceyedson9652]

@@katerivers6117 I didn’t know this. Interesting. Many instrumental Churches of Christ also use The Church At (address).

[@Coexistwithmyfist]

The ridiculous part of it is how much they deny they are a denomination even though they were found like in the 1900's, believing that their sect was founded by Jesus Himself of which they have no evidence of.

[@Nick-qo8jw]

Booooring

[@JaysonCarmona]

They are very close in many aspects to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in salvation and baptism.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

nope...not even close...Mormons proxy baptize for the dead...insist only their Priesthood Elders have baptizing authority...and believe in ultimate godhood for Mormons and in some sort of "universal" Salvation for nearly everyone else (baptized or not)...sounds like you're just uncomfortable with bible believing folks who quote Acts 2:38 or Mark 16:16, or Gal 3:26-27, or Titus 3:5, or John 3:5...etc.etc.∞

[@JaysonCarmona]

@@anarchorepublican5954 Campbellites still haven't figured out 1 Corinthians 15:29.

[@JaysonCarmona]

Salvation comes before Theosis. @@anarchorepublican5954

[@larrymcclain8874]

The acapella churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches both are not Mormon at all. The reason why you may notice some similarities, however, is that some of the restorationist themes from the American Restoration Movement in the early 19th century are also seen among the Mormons. The reason for this is that an early preacher in the American Restoration Movement, Sidney Rigdon, who fell out of favor with Alexander Campbell, defected to the Mormon church and brought many of these themes with him. Rigdon was an early associate of Joseph Smith when he enjoined himself to Smith's cause and was one of the influential leaders of the Mormon church. Some have suggested that he was a participant in writing the Book of Mormon. He definitely had some influence.

[@adamandsethdylantoo]

A big reason for that might be that many of the early leaders in the Mormon church came from the Stone/Campbell movement, like Sidney Ridgon and his church congregation. Alexander Campbell actually wrote against Mormonism at the time it was being founded

[@SpotterVideo]

New Covenant Whole Gospel: Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[@oldseer7610]

Discovery: Biblical creation is not the creation of a material universe. The things of creation are metaphors for spiritual nature not material nature. Over time and experience Old Seers have found spiritual interpretations to be correct. Material creation is incorrect. There now exists two distinctly opposing understandings of biblical Creation. No others are possible. The universe contains only 2 things that everything can be derived from, material nature and spiritual nature. No other interpretations are possible but these two EXAMPLE: In the beginning there was created the sprit and soul. And the soul was without knowledge and ignorance was upon the surface of the man/mind. And it was caused that he be enlightened, and man became a "living soul". This is the first knowledge. (day)